IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i5p2870-2890.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimax-Optimal Policy Learning Under Unobserved Confounding

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan Kallus

    (Cornell University, New York, New York 10044)

  • Angela Zhou

    (Cornell University, New York, New York 10044)

Abstract

We study the problem of learning personalized decision policies from observational data while accounting for possible unobserved confounding. Previous approaches, which assume unconfoundedness, that is, that no unobserved confounders affect both the treatment assignment as well as outcome, can lead to policies that introduce harm rather than benefit when some unobserved confounding is present as is generally the case with observational data. Instead, because policy value and regret may not be point-identifiable, we study a method that minimizes the worst-case estimated regret of a candidate policy against a baseline policy over an uncertainty set for propensity weights that controls the extent of unobserved confounding. We prove generalization guarantees that ensure our policy is safe when applied in practice and in fact obtains the best possible uniform control on the range of all possible population regrets that agree with the possible extent of confounding. We develop efficient algorithmic solutions to compute this minimax-optimal policy. Finally, we assess and compare our methods on synthetic and semisynthetic data. In particular, we consider a case study on personalizing hormone replacement therapy based on observational data, in which we validate our results on a randomized experiment. We demonstrate that hidden confounding can hinder existing policy-learning approaches and lead to unwarranted harm although our robust approach guarantees safety and focuses on well-evidenced improvement, a necessity for making personalized treatment policies learned from observational data reliable in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan Kallus & Angela Zhou, 2021. "Minimax-Optimal Policy Learning Under Unobserved Confounding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2870-2890, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:5:p:2870-2890
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3699
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stoye, Jörg, 2009. "Minimax regret treatment choice with finite samples," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 151(1), pages 70-81, July.
    2. Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Christian Hansen & Whitney Newey & James Robins, 2018. "Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-68, February.
    3. Jesse Y. Hsu & Dylan S. Small, 2013. "Calibrating Sensitivity Analyses to Observed Covariates in Observational Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 803-811, December.
    4. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    5. A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1962. "Programming with linear fractional functionals," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3‐4), pages 181-186, September.
    6. Ross L. Prentice & Mary Pettinger & Garnet L. Anderson, 2005. "Statistical Issues Arising in the Women's Health Initiative," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 899-911, December.
    7. Qingyuan Zhao & Dylan S. Small & Bhaswar B. Bhattacharya, 2019. "Sensitivity analysis for inverse probability weighting estimators via the percentile bootstrap," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 81(4), pages 735-761, September.
    8. L W Miratrix & S Wager & J R Zubizarreta, 2018. "Shape-constrained partial identification of a population mean under unknown probabilities of sample selection," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(1), pages 103-114.
    9. Teck-Hua Ho & Noah Lim & Sadat Reza & Xiaoyu Xia, 2017. "OM Forum—Causal Inference Models in Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 509-525, October.
    10. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, October.
    11. Colin B. Fogarty & Dylan S. Small, 2016. "Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Comparisons in Matched Observational Studies Through Quadratically Constrained Linear Programming," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(516), pages 1820-1830, October.
    12. Stoye, Jörg, 2012. "Minimax regret treatment choice with covariates or with limited validity of experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 138-156.
    13. Raiden Hasegawa & Dylan Small, 2017. "Sensitivity analysis for matched pair analysis of binary data: From worst case to average case analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1424-1432, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nathan Kallus, 2022. "Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference," Papers 2201.05893, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Policy Learning With Observational Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 133-161, January.
    2. Davide Viviano, 2019. "Policy Targeting under Network Interference," Papers 1906.10258, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    3. Masahiro Kato & Masaaki Imaizumi & Takuya Ishihara & Toru Kitagawa, 2023. "Asymptotically Optimal Fixed-Budget Best Arm Identification with Variance-Dependent Bounds," Papers 2302.02988, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    4. Yuchen Hu & Henry Zhu & Emma Brunskill & Stefan Wager, 2024. "Minimax-Regret Sample Selection in Randomized Experiments," Papers 2403.01386, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    5. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.
    6. Brett R. Gordon & Robert Moakler & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2023. "Predictive Incrementality by Experimentation (PIE) for Ad Measurement," Papers 2304.06828, arXiv.org.
    7. Augustine Denteh & Helge Liebert, 2022. "Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," Working Papers 2201, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    8. Davide Viviano & Jess Rudder, 2020. "Policy design in experiments with unknown interference," Papers 2011.08174, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    9. Anders Bredahl Kock & David Preinerstorfer, 2024. "Regularizing Discrimination in Optimal Policy Learning with Distributional Targets," Papers 2401.17909, arXiv.org.
    10. Chunrong Ai & Yue Fang & Haitian Xie, 2024. "Data-driven Policy Learning for a Continuous Treatment," Papers 2402.02535, arXiv.org.
    11. Paul B. Ellickson & Wreetabrata Kar & James C. Reeder, 2023. "Estimating Marketing Component Effects: Double Machine Learning from Targeted Digital Promotions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 704-728, July.
    12. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    13. Ruoxuan Xiong & Allison Koenecke & Michael Powell & Zhu Shen & Joshua T. Vogelstein & Susan Athey, 2021. "Federated Causal Inference in Heterogeneous Observational Data," Papers 2107.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    14. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    15. Davide Viviano & Jelena Bradic, 2019. "Synthetic learner: model-free inference on treatments over time," Papers 1904.01490, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    16. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    17. Sung Jae Jun & Sokbae Lee, 2024. "Causal Inference Under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 998-1009, July.
    18. Manski, Charles F., 2023. "Probabilistic prediction for binary treatment choice: With focus on personalized medicine," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 647-663.
    19. Eric Mbakop & Max Tabord‐Meehan, 2021. "Model Selection for Treatment Choice: Penalized Welfare Maximization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 825-848, March.
    20. Charles F. Manski, 2020. "Towards Reasonable Patient Care Under Uncertainty," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(2), pages 227-245, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:5:p:2870-2890. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.